Under the Obama Energy Department, a lot of people are winning big by losing the taxpayers’ money. In the government-sponsored green energy industry, working Americans have effectively handed millions in salaries and bonuses to executives of companies on the road to bankruptcy.At the most famous failed solar company, Solyndra—to which the Obama administration gave a $530 million loan guarantee—several executives were making nearly half a million dollars a year, including large bonuses taken in the months before the company filed for bankruptcy. For them, the failed endeavor was extremely lucrative.Solyndra was hardly the only taxpayer-backed firm that paid big bonuses while stumbling to bankruptcy, however. As ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity recently uncovered in a report, Beacon Power, which received a $43 million loan guarantee, paid bonuses of about $260,000 to three individuals before going bankrupt last year. Another company, Ener1, the recipient of a grant worth $118 million, paid its CEO a $450,000 bonus. In January, it, too, filed for bankruptcy.Supposedly, the Department of Energy approved these loans to foster an industry which the market didn’t come close to supporting. Certainly most Americans, if they knew about the program at all, did not imagine leaders at these startups paying themselves millions in taxpayer dollars.

﻿

In 2009, after bailing out many of the country’s financial institutions, President Obama made executive compensation a major political issue, proposing rules to limit it for firms that had received the taxpayer money. He observed that “what gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.” He said these words just weeks before his administration made its half-billion dollar commitment to Solyndra.Later that same year, President Obama demanded executives at AIG return their bonuses, asking “How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?”I have a couple questions of my own.Why isn’t the President just as concerned about the looting of failed energy startups at taxpayer expense?Why isn’t he demanding that executives at Solyndra and the other bankrupt green energy firms return their bonuses, since we were keeping those firms afloat with gigantic and unjustified loans?In truth, the real scandal goes far beyond bonuses and salaries. Many of these companies were dependent on an enormous amount of government support all along—far more than just a little boost to get them going.Two numbers give you a sense of the scale of the bad energy bets the Obama administration is making. Several weeks ago, in my newsletter on the transition to liquefied natural gas as a less expensive source of fuel, I reported that Chesapeake Energy had invested more than $150 million to build a national network of LNG truck stops—an investment by a private company to be supported by genuine demand.President Obama, on the other hand, is putting taxpayer money into dozens of risky ventures. Last week yet another green energy firm, Solar Trust of America, declared bankruptcy after having received a $2.1 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.That loan guarantee is more than the value of Regal Entertainment, the nation’s largest chain of movie theaters, and about the value of HSN, the Home Shopping Network.It’s one heck of a loan for a startup. And it put taxpayers on the hook for 14 times the amount Chesapeake invested in its far more viable project to build a nationwide natural gas highway.Of course, there could be a lot more where all this came from. The Energy Department’s current loan program has approved nearly $35 billion in total—more than $110 from every American citizen. Feel like you’re getting your money’s worth?

The information's hiding in plain sight but it’s still a nifty catch by the Standard’s Daniel Halper. You know why? Because the idea that Jon Corzine is still raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for The One is so insane and implausible, virtually no one would have thought to check. Of coursethat's not happening. Of course.

And yet.

He's in the $500,000+ club for the first quarter of this year, the most elite group there is among O's cash cows. You know what else happened during that quarter? News broke that more than a billion dollars in MF Global client funds had apparently been “vaporized” in the firm’s collapse, with investigators clueless as to where the money might have gone. As recently as last month, new evidence emerged pointing to Corzine’s direct involvement in using clients’ cash to cover the firm’s debts. And yet, presumably, he was squeezing his rich friends for dough for Obama the whole time. Ace asks a good question: “Why is a man under investigation by a government agency permitted to raise money for the man who controls that agency?” Wouldn’t be the first time Corzine’s used his political leverageto personal advantage.

If you missed it a few days ago, read Ed’s post on Patrick Kennedy claiming that the White House rewards its rich donors with certain quid pro quos. Can’t wait to see what Jon Corzine gets in return for his extreme diligence on behalf of the “Not a Republican” reelection effort. Exit question: Does Team O understand that transparency is supposed to act as a deterrent to impropriety or the appearance of impropriety? They love to pat themselves on the back for voluntarily disclosing the names of their bundlers, but the point of disclosure is that it dissuades you, at least in theory, from dealing with cretins lest you be scrutinized for it. Where’s the dissuasion, guys?

Re: THE NEW CLASS OF OBAMA'S PROTECTED BILLIONARES

Jon Corzine left Goldman Sachs with a net worth far exceeding even that of Mitt Romney today. Many accounts of his tenure at Goldman suggest he "failed up" the corporate ladder.

Pushed out of Goldman in a power struggle (sparked in part by his support for a government bailout of Long-Term Capital Management), he nonetheless pocketed somewhere between $350 million and $500 million when the company went public. He used the cash to buy himself a Senate seat, spending $62 million out of his own pocket.

﻿

After the Senate, he spent nearly $40 million of his own money to win the New Jersey governorship. While he was running for senator, the married-but-separated Corzine struck up a romantic relationship with Carla Katz, also married and head of Local 1034 of the Communications Workers of America. They broke up in 2004, but the flirting apparently never ended. In 2007, Katz and Corzine were both involved in negotiations over a state workers contract. In one email during that time obtained by the Newark Star-Ledger, Katz informs the governor, "BTW, I had an over the top erotic dream about you last night. Bad boy!!"

﻿

Bad boy indeed. When the couple broke up, and after her union had endorsed Corzine and worked for his re-election, the governor's lawyers negotiated a settlement whereby he reportedly paid Katz more than $6 million and forgave a half-million-dollar loan he made to her when they were still an item.

﻿

When Corzine ran for re-election as governor, both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden stumped for him. Biden explained that from the moment he and the president sat down to figure out their economic strategy, "Literally, the first guy I called was Jon Corzine. It's not a joke. It's not a joke. First of all, he's the smartest guy I know in terms of the economy and on finance, and I really mean that."

﻿Despite that ringing endorsement, Corzine lost his 2009 re-election bid to reformer Chris Christie. So Corzine went back to Wall Street, as chief executive of MF Global Holdings, a bond trading firm. A research note from the firm of Sander O'Neill Partners summarized what the Street expected from Corzine: "We suspect that his contacts in Washington could prove useful as MF Global navigates a shifting regulatory environment."

Corzine proceeded to do exactly the sorts of things Wall Street has become infamous for: making crazy bets with other people's money, counting on governments to bail out the private sector and, allegedly, expecting to get friendly treatment from regulators. Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, was an old friend and colleague of Corzine's at Goldman Sachs and in Washington. Gensler had been a key aide to Sen. Paul Sarbanes and had reportedly worked closely with Corzine writing the Sarbanes-Oxley bill. At MF Global, under Gensler's watch, Corzine bet more than $6 billion on the European sovereign debt crisis, using borrowed client money. MF Global also apparently commingled client and company funds to pay off financial obligations, which is illegal.

﻿

Under Corzine, MF Global lost well over $1 billion, and I don't mean in the profit/loss sense. I mean it was physically misplaced and Corzine cannot account for where it went. The Justice Department is investigating, and news media accounts suggest a criminal prosecution is likely. Somewhat better late than never, Gensler recused himself after MF Global went bankrupt.

﻿

So, why the trip down memory lane? Because the Obama campaign just announced that Corzine is still on the list of top-tier bundlers for the Obama re-election campaign. Corzine has raised more than half a million dollars for Obama.

﻿

Obama is constantly denouncing "millionaires and billionaires" for playing by their own rules. It's true that the campaign told one reporter in February that it wouldn't take more money from Corzine himself, but it's been happy to let the man solicit donations for Obama even as Corzine is under investigation by Obama's own Justice Department. How cozy.

Tell me, what's the point of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and its countless sympathizers in the Democratic Party and the media, if that's good enough? Whatever happened to changing how Washington works?

﻿

We're about to enter a very long campaign in which where an apparently squeaky-clean Mitt Romney is going to be demonized for his success and dragged through the gutter. Meanwhile, Obama took cash from a true denizen of the gutter.

The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, “Forward” — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.

Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called “Forward (generic name of socialist publications).”

“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online encyclopedia explains.

The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word “Forward” with the “O” having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign’s official beginning.

There have been at least two radical-left publications named “Vorwaerts” (the German word for “Forward”). One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany’s SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.

East Germany named its Army soccer club ASK Vorwaerts Berlin (later FC Vorwaerts Frankfort).

Vladimir Lenin founded the publication “Vpered” (the Russian word for “forward”) in 1905. Soviet propaganda film-maker Dziga Vertov made a documentary whose title is sometimes translated as “Forward, Soviet” (though also and more literally as “Stride, Soviet”).

Conservative critics of the Obama administration have noted numerous ties to radicalism and socialists throughout Mr. Obama’s history, from his first political campaign being launched from the living room of two former Weather Underground members, to appointing as green jobs czar Van Jones, a self-described communist.

OBAMA'S SLOGAN: "Forward Forward" A Hitler Youth Anthem

A few people have commented on the fact that Obama's 2012 campaign slogan 'Forward' has a long history in socialist and communist ideology. The most chilling and in your face example I've seen so far is from the National Socialist Hitler Youth Anthem "Forward,Forward." The themes of youth have always been a big part of Obama's campaigns, but seeing his campaign slogan being sung by actual Hitler Youth Members really brings it all together and creeps me out. As I said on Twitter, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to release it as campaign material. Forward Forward.

Critics of the president asked that question after he asserted, “Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years.”(This figure comes from an online article that has been widely debunked because, among other sleights of hand, it interprets modest rates of increase in annual spending as a reduction in the spending, even though the total actual spending under Obama’s watch has been gargantuan.)

But the same question could apply to the president’s personal finances as well, given that the president and Mrs. Obama have spent enough money during their time in the White House to reportedly express anxiety about their personal finances — even as the president earns several million dollars from his book sales and even though the taxpayers cover a portion of the Obamas’ living expenses.

The Obama campaign has been quick to shine a spotlight on symbols of Mitt Romney’s wealth — the fact that he owns a Swiss bank account, the car elevator in his California home. And the media have exhibited a particular fascination with the cost of Ann Romney’s blouse and her expensive enjoyment of horse riding and training.

But President Obama also enjoys the finer things in life: hosting White House dinners that feature $59-per-pound Wagyu steak, hosting fundraisers where guests are treated to quail egg with caviar and salmon ceviche, and enjoying 100 rounds of golf as president. And Michelle knows how to relax in **noallow** as well. She and the girls recently got away to attend Beyoncé’s comeback concert.

Some of these things are paid for by the taxpayers, such as the president’s transportation. But other costs are covered by the Obamas — clothes, incidental costs, most food (but taxpayers cover the cost of state dinners and official events). When Michelle Obama and their daughters travel abroad without the president, they reimburse the government the cost of their first-class tickets to the destination. Of course, that reimbursement is a much smaller sum than the actual cost of transporting the first lady; a much-derided trip to Spain by the first lady cost taxpayers $467,000 in transportation and security expenses.

In Jodi Kantor’s book about the president’s first three years in office, The Obamas, she describes tensions in the White House before the 2010 midterms:

Even the president made uncomfortable jokes about why his wife needed so many things. Behind the scenes, aides said, the Obamas were concerned about money: the president’s books could only sell so many copies, and it would be years until he could write more and the first lady could write her own. From vacation rental homes big enough to accommodate the Secret Service to all the personal entertaining they did at the White House, their lifestyle had grown fearsomely expensive.

Every president lives a lifestyle more expensive than all but the most ostentatious billionaires. But the Obamas’ cost of living may become a political liability for the president for three reasons.

For starters, key demographics of voters perceive President Obama as a man who spends lavishly on his family and himself, according to focus groups convened by the organization Resurgent Republic.

“Concern over Obama vacations wasn’t a topic we probed, but that also is somewhat interesting since these comments were unprompted. It didn’t come up in all of our groups, but it was mentioned several times among the working-class groups we conducted. This issue doesn’t carry the same level of concern as the desire for quality, family-supporting jobs. But it’s noteworthy since these comments came from working-class swing voters, not strong Republicans.”

Among the comments from women in the focus groups in Cleveland, Ohio:

· “Michelle Obama spent a million dollars to take her kids to Hawaii.”

· “President Obama is the only president to take so many trips.”

· “The president needs to come down to our level.”

· “We have restrictions. He [President Obama] needs them, too.”

In an April interview with NRO, Romney took a shot at Obama’s personal spending habits while discussing the GSA scandal: “I think the example starts at the top. People have to see that the president is not taking elaborate vacations and spending in a way that is inconsistent with the state of the overall economy and the state of the American family.”

Second, as a candidate, Obama emphasized his humble beginnings and the fact that he was uninterested in material wealth or a luxurious lifestyle. He repeatedly noted that after graduating from Columbia, he chose a poorly paying job as a community organizer instead of following more lucrative paths. In her 2008 convention address, Michelle Obama touted her husband: “Instead of heading to Wall Street, Barack had gone to work in neighborhoods devastated when steel plants shut down and jobs dried up.”

On the campaign trail in 2008, she proudly described her and her husband’s career path to a group of women at a day-care center in Zanesville, Ohio, where the median household income in 2004 was $37,192. “We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do,” she said. Then she offered advice to the group: “Don’t go into corporate America,” she urged, dismissing it as a “money-making industry.”

Of course, it’s very easy to belittle “the money-making industry” when you have a lot of money. Even in the White House, President Obama has lashed out at what he perceives as others’ greed, declaring, “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Perhaps that’s easier to say when you live rent-free in a mansion and don’t pay for your own gas.

Finally, as a candidate and as president, Obama reminds us that he and his family went through tougher times earlier in their lives and sometimes struggled to handle their debts. One of the intriguing and little-known aspects of the Obamas’ life is just how much they struggled with personal debt issues well into their adult lives and after they were making six-figure incomes.

The first year of tax returns that the Obamas have disclosed is from 2000, and it shows a joint total income of $240,726. (Adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, that would be roughly $321,646 today.) Surprisingly, the family’s personal finances in that year were evidently so troubled that Obama had his credit card rejected at the Hertz rent-a-car counter. Obama has told this story several times to emphasize that not long ago, he was “broke.”

In the following three years, the Obamas’ income ranged from about $275,000 in 2001 (roughly $357,000 in today’s dollars) to a low of $207,647 in 2004 (about $253,000 in today’s dollars). In 2004, Obama’s autobiography, Dreams from My Father, became a national bestseller and the couple’s income jumped to $1.7 million.

Michelle Obama, campaigning in Pennsylvania in 2008, shared this surprising anecdote, as described by a Chicago Tribune reporter:

Michelle Obama is pretending to take a call, thumb and pinkie finger up to her face, telling how she and her husband used to get calls from loan debt agents not that long ago.

“I remember those days clearly, sweating to get that mail,” she said. “That collection agency, the loan debt people calling you telling you that you’ve got a few more days before you’re in trouble.”

David Mendell discussed the Obamas’ surprisingly dicey personal finances in his 2007 biography of the then-senator, Obama: From Promise to Power:

He and Michelle were living a middle- to upper-middle-class, white collar existence, going home to a spacious town house in Hyde Park and employing a caregiver to help with child care. But despite their combined incomes, which topped $250,000 a year, Obama had personal debt. He had maxed out his credit card, partly on campaign expenses, and the couple were both repaying student loans from Harvard.

Those campaign expenses came from Obama’s 2000 Democratic-primary bid to unseat Representative Bobby Rush, a four-term incumbent with 90 percent name recognition and a 70 percent approval rating. Obama lost, garnering 30 percent to Rush’s 61 percent. Michelle reportedly thought the campaign was a bad idea, and a new book, Ed Klein’s The Amateur, claims that the stress of the defeat and resulting debt brought the couple to the brink of divorce.

Undoubtedly the 2012 election will focus more on the federal government’s spending under Obama than on the president’s personal spending. But the parallel between the two financial pictures is worth noting.

Almost all spendaholics or those who are unable to control their spending engage in a certain amount of denial, an effort to fool themselves about the hard truths of their financial situation. They assure themselves that they must spend money now in order to save more money later, or they count on additional earnings that are unlikely to materialize (say, through rosy assumptions of future economic growth). When confronted with evidence of a serious problem, they assert that it doesn’t really matter (“No matter what some rating agency may say, we have always been, and we will always be, a AAA country”).

In light of all this, “Does Obama know how much he is spending” appears to be an extremely relevant and entirely fair question.

Obama’s alma mater has been revealed as the most profoundly corrupt institution conceivable. But that isn’t stopping the nuts behind ACORN from receiving massive amounts of our money, compliments of the Manchurian Moonbat.

[An] ACORN official (Joe McGavin) will go from operating a corrupt leftist community group that’s banned by Congress from receiving federal funding to controlling over $445 million in U.S. taxpayer funds. The money is part of a $7.6 billion Treasury Department program to help the “unemployed or substantially underemployed” make their mortgage payments.

McGavin is director of the Illinois Hardest Hit Program, which funnels our money to Obama’s homies back in Chicago.

Before that he was director of counseling for ACORN Housing in Chicago and operations manager for a Chicago ACORN offshoot called Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA). His strong ties to ACORN make him a suspect candidate to handle such a huge amount of taxpayer dollars.

That’s putting it mildly. But then, the same goes double for Obama himself.

The Obama-tied community organization supposedly shut down after a series of exposés about its illegal activities, including fraudulent voter registration drives and involvement in the housing market meltdown. Read all about it in Judicial Watch’s special report, “The Rebranding of ACORN.” The legal scandals led Congress to pass a 2009 law banning federal funding for ACORN, which for years enjoyed a huge flow of taxpayer dollars to promote its various leftwing causes.

However, the Obama Regime has ignored the ban. This constitutes the massive theft of public money. If the media establishment were the least bit responsible, the Moonbat Messiah would be on his way to prison in the familiar Illinois political tradition, rather than possible reelection.